As Buddhist we all understand the meaning of the fetter “Mana”. Thought that someone is higher , lower, or equal is due to not understanding Anatta. We all are different aggregates. So we can’t compare each other. Even two atoms are not identical. As far as we understand that we all are different, there is no problem. We should not promote any suggestions to separate, based on creed, color, sex, ethnic back ground religion or any of those discriminations.Buddha Dhamma has only one taste - the taste of freedom. Thats all we talk, nothing else.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Bhikkhus, if you develop and make much this one thing, it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction. What is it? It is recollecting the Enlightened One. If this single thing is recollected and made much, it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.Anguttara-Nikaya: Ekanipata: Ekadhammapali: PañhamavaggaVSMVMMWBBTBHTWTBTMy Page

SarathW wrote:As Buddhist we all understand the meaning of the fetter “Mana”. Thought that someone is higher , lower, or equal is due to not understanding Anatta. We all are different aggregates. So we can’t compare each other. Even two atoms are not identical. As far as we understand that we all are different, there is no problem. We should not promote any suggestions to separate, based on creed, color, sex, ethnic back ground religion or any of those discriminations.Buddha Dhamma has only one taste - the taste of freedom. Thats all we talk, nothing else.

Hi SarathW,

I don't understand your logic here... besides, I think that it's irrelevant to what Annapurna tried to suggest. (Whether it was a good suggestion, or not.)

I think it's obvious some people have some needs (or challenges) in their practices which are different to others... I can understand how they might feel it could be helpful for them to have a group where they can share their practices together, without having to deal with what they feel might be unnecessary obstructions from others, who might not understand these issues. I don't think it necessarily have anything to do with superiority, inferiority or equality... there's really no need for us to feel self-defensive about it, especially if there was nothing malignant about it.

I notice that some people would say something like, "Hey, this Buddha Dhamma have only one taste and I think that's really all that we should care about, nothing else..." whenever some people tried to create a support group of their own. (I read something similar in an article about a sangha which was all-black, and a white guy, a so-called "Buddhist leader" in the area, said it.)

I think that was quite unfortunate, and inappropriate. I sympathize a lot with women and other minority groups who practice... I'm deaf, and I'm literally the only one at the sanghas. It isn't easy for me. I sometimes feel like I'm Bodhidharma travelling to China, and there's no common language... I'm not even enlightened. I feel like I'm sitting at the wall for 9 years, waiting for the people around me to share their buddha-nature with me. (I practice with Mahayana people, so I think this is quite appropriate.)

I would like this practice to be opened up to deaf people (more than what it is now), eventually... but I definitely don't expect them to just walk in and practice with hearing people the way that I do. (The only reason why I do this is because I'm crazy.) I think that it would be extremely unrealistic to expect from an average person. While it's not that difficult to just drop in for a sitting, it would be hard if they tried to sustain that, especially on their own, for any meaningful length of time.

The way that I see it, if some people feel that having their own group would help them in their practices, or help them to have more fruitful discussions about it... I think that's great. I'm not going to be dismissive of them for that, or say some condescending things about it. If the statement about the "Buddha Dhamma having one taste" is true, then over the time their practices will converge with others, anyway. I think there should be no worries.

The problem you seem to have I think comes from trying to impose your understanding of what the Dhammic practice should entail, instead of doing it for yourself. So, I think you basically ended up being the one who actually had the ideas of superiority, inferiority and equality, by reading them into another's post... hope you see what I mean.

With these kind of posts, like Annapurna's, whether they're good suggestions or not, whether she handled herself skillfully in these situations or not, I always see this as an opportunity to practice metta, karuna, sympathetic joy, and upekkha. I think that this might be the only way to have a dialogue which is fruitful, for everyone. It benefits not only for us, but others too.

I think that it's in this sense that the Buddha Dhamma have one taste.

Hi BeeblbroxThanks for correcting me. I see your point. I did not mean to object to any persons point of view. I am not an enlightened one either! Please consider the followings.

- I am more closed to women than men (sorry guys) I feel more comfortable and protected with them. The reason been, I was brought up by 12 women (my aunts) and six sisters. I was very closed to my mother, more than my father. So I always protect women.- I am frustrated with the way society is disintegrating with deferent groups. Most importantly, it will hinder the attainment of Arahantship for a Buddhist. So we should try to minimise the segregation. Western countries (developed) have less discrimination than third world countries. That alone is a good example of how you can reap the benefits of your good action in this life it self.- Please consider the administration difficulties. (Dhamma wheel is a non profit organisation) so they have to keep it simple.- I agree with you and your point taken.- Please strive, you can attain Arahantship in this life.

SDC wrote:We shouldn't make any changes that perpetuate our differences.

Our differences don't mean anything, and shouldn't mean anything.

Let's all agree on this - certain topics are touchy. No matter how clever you think you're being, no matter how righteous your intention, it is likely your words may not be accepted by all involved. Be ready for the consequences or, dare I say, DON'T POST.

there is no self, separating people based on gender is giving into the illusion that there is a self that needs to be separated.

And how about getting a protected area for women here, like in E Sangha, however small, an area where female members cnas share some women issues in an atmosphere that we decide, perhaps we self-moderate sisterly, an area where men and male mods are heartily invited guests, to read and participate, but not welcome to domineer any discussions, as it is can happen now?

Sensitive topics would certainly benefit.

As a woman myself I'm wondering why women would need a "protected area" ? If women have to have a special area why not have similar areas for lesbian, gay and transgendered members as well ----and also for teenagers and....perhaps for vegetarians?

I think women can be just as domineering in discussions as men if they want to be - and personally its no problem for me to interact with others on a forum whatever their sexuality happens to be.

Just a personal opinion though.

with metta

Aloka

separating men and women is an absurdly outdated method. the only way this would be appropriate is if this forum were about physical health or something as men and women are different physically but we all practice the same dhamma to get over the exact same delusion. illusion of self has no gender. men and women are totally equal and separating them is really strange. i have enjoyed a lot of your posts specifically and having not been able to hear them because you were separated in some "women only" section would be terrible!

Notice? A lot of the time you can't even know unless the member has mentioned it. Just quickly - no checking or anything - can you tell me the gender of skydancer, catmoon, Ayu, songhill, Astus, Chris, seekeroftruth, termite, jrh001, pink_trike, fig tree? They are all good DW usernames. My own username is gender-ambiguous and some of you may remember that I posted regularly to e-Sangha for a year before anyone knew my gender. I suggest that means it can't be terribly important.

Finally, even when the member gives the information, you (sadly) can't be sure they are telling the truth - and a rule or policy that can't be monitored or policed is a waste of time and energy, IMHO.

Kim

and one for people who like sports, people who hate sports, for people who suffer from baldness, people with big feet, and so on and so on. you are absolutely right: right speech transcends gender on every level. i can't think of a single step on the eightfold path that would be more appropriate for one gender over another. men and women meditate the same, practice mindfulness the same, use right speech the same and so on. saying otherwise or implying it by separating the genders is totally absurd.

all differences are delusion.

not to mention i would be very sad to not here the voice of any of the women on here if they stuck to a women only section. and as you pointed out, most of the women on here i can't even tell are women! so it's not about not hearing women, it's about not hearing PEOPLE. a chunk of people would disappear to a separated section and i wouldn't get to hear them as much. we are all equally valuable and should be encouraged to share with everyone equally.

not to mention real life! if this attitude was held in the world today i wouldn't have heard all the wonderful teachings of the bhikkhunis at the zen temple i used to attend! and ayya khema and shaila catherine are two of my favorite authors, if there was a big separation attitude in the world like this for me i wouldn't have read their books as instead of being in the general "buddhism" section in the book store they would have been in the "womens" section! and i wouldn't have found so much wonderful knowledge.

AN 5.200 wrote:"Furthermore, there is the case where the mind of a monk, when attending to self-identity, doesn't leap up at self-identity, doesn't grow confident, steadfast, or released in self-identity. But when attending to the cessation of self-identity, his mind leaps up at the cessation of self-identity, grows confident, steadfast, & released in the cessation of self-identity. When his mind is rightly-gone, rightly developed, has rightly risen above, gained release, and become disjoined from self-identity, then whatever fermentations, torments, & fevers there are that arise in dependence on self-identity, he is released from them. He does not experience that feeling. This is expounded as the escape from self-identity.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

I think it is worth remembering the context that originally brought this thread about. If a member of some length of time who has made a fair contribution, feels uncomfortable or as if they feel they have been treated without sensitivity or whatever, I think we should reflect on the situation and see if there is a need or possibility for change.

I would also note that there were two interrelated monastic orders created not one combined order. And although I haven't really looked at the nuns rule, as I understand that there are some rules that are gender specific and rules that were put in place to protect women from men.

Mr Man wrote:I think it is worth remembering the context that originally brought this thread about. If a member of some length of time who has made a fair contribution, feels uncomfortable or as if they feel they have been treated without sensitivity or whatever, I think we should reflect on the situation and see if there is a need or possibility for change.

I think while it's definitely worthwhile to examine how we form identity around gender and cling to it (a lifelong pursuit?) in the meantime, some measures may help make a place comfortable for both genders. So encouraging female members and having more female mods may be some of them. Worth considering at any rate. As for women only fora, well if there was a real momentum for that I would support it - I can see there being some topics that women would feel better about discussing if no men were present. But I am not sure this momentum exists now.

Dan74 wrote:I think while it's definitely worthwhile to examine how we form identity around gender and cling to it (a lifelong pursuit?) in the meantime, some measures may help make a place comfortable for both genders. So encouraging female members and having more female mods may be some of them. .

As a female member myself, I haven't noticed women generally being discouraged here, so I don't really understand why they need to be encouraged any more than men are. I also think that if a woman is able to take part in a robust debate she doesn't need to be treated differently, or like fluffy pink candy-floss just because she's female ! .

Regarding mods, my personal opinion is that they should be chosen not for their gender but for their calm and reasoned communication skills, ability to take a neutral rather than an emotional stance in disputes - and also have a good knowledge of the Dhamma.

It hadnt struck me to wonder about the gender difference until I read this thread..It has now caught my attention. Is it known what proportion of regular posters are women ? And how many moderators ?Just out of interest.

No reply to this question as asked previously.An old "what's your sex/gender?" thread had 72% male, 27% female, and 1 transgendered person. No notation of gender of mods. And only 64 respondents out of 6500+ members. Not exactly statistically significant. My guess would be closer to 95%+ male posters.

Dan74 wrote:I think while it's definitely worthwhile to examine how we form identity around gender and cling to it (a lifelong pursuit?) in the meantime, some measures may help make a place comfortable for both genders. So encouraging female members and having more female mods may be some of them. .

As a female member myself, I haven't noticed women generally being discouraged here, so I don't really understand why they need to be encouraged any more than men are. I also think that if a woman is able to take part in a robust debate she doesn't need to be treated differently, or like fluffy pink candy-floss just because she's female ! .

Regarding mods, my personal opinion is that they should be chosen not for their gender but for their calm and reasoned communication skills, ability to take a neutral rather than an emotional stance in disputes - and also have a good knowledge of the Dhamma.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."